Should I stay in America if it has become too corrupt and too undemocratic?

[Bobby_2021]

13 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

“Oh, America? What a terrible place! We already live in the best country”

They lost a war against America. And as a result they got into a terrible condition. What else were they supposed to feel?

Their hate for America is totally valid. In their mind America is responsible for their suffering. And they might not be that wrong.

The dissolution of the USSR was one of the greatest catastrophes in the 20th century.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The point is that Leo does not take into account the larger context in which things happen and just blame people for being corrupt. Maybe explore why they are corrupt? Nah that is too complex.

CORRUPTION has existed for 500,000 years, before humans existed!

Edited July 23 by Leo Gura

[Husseinisdoingfine]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

 

My grandma, who lived in Russia for years, worships Putin and still watches the Russia-1 TV channel. Anyone who has or seems to have a problem with Russia is the enemy for her.

I am all to familiar with this. Both my parents watch the Russia-1 channel, as well as NTV. 

They're all blindly fans of Putin, despite him objectively robbing the country. So many of my relatives have never been to America, but they know for a fact that its' bad. 

[Bobby_2021]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

CORRUPTION has existed for 500,000 years, before humans existed!

A lot of things happened for 5000000 years. If that is significant to the issue of interest, feel free to talk about it. 

Or address it when it is being talked about.

Not only you don't bring up any larger context, but dismiss and deny when it is being bought about.

None of this changes that fact that UKRAINE IS ASTRONOMICALLY WORSE OFF AFTER WESTERN INTERVENTION THAN BEFORE IT.

Whatever little pesky corruption issue they had would have disappeared over time, had the west not poked it's nose into it.

Now you don't even need added context to see that.

Edited July 23 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

35 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

They're all blindly fans of Putin, despite him objectively robbing the country

Putin robbing the country is better than Americans robbing your country.

You have to understand that modern capitalism is designed to siphon wealth to United States and their allies, while you get pennies for cheap labour.

Atleast with Putin, the money stays in Russia. 

Why do you think they wanted to expand NATO into Ukraine? 

Hint: BlackRock already owns land in Ukraine.

Edited July 23 by Bobby_2021

[nerdspeak]

I get what this “development” talk points to but it’s also dangerously close to neo-imperialist ideology.  
 

Like, of course I prefer living in Belgium to Afghanistan, but I am making that judgment from my own perspective according to my own values.  

[Husseinisdoingfine]

I swear... People put more attentiveness into their orders at McDonalds than they do for their ****ing President. Very few people will actually go to a candidates website and compare and contrast the policies with another candidate's.

 

[zazen]

2 hours ago, nerdspeak said:

I get what this “development” talk points to but it’s also dangerously close to neo-imperialist ideology.

Like, of course I prefer living in Belgium to Afghanistan, but I am making that judgment from my own perspective according to my own values.  

 True, we first need to define what we mean by progress or development. Development can be economic, ecological, political, social, or in terms of overall well-being. Who gets to define what is developed or not, and how well is the West even doing in these metrics?

Economically, inequality is rampant, with debt maintaining the illusion of prosperity. Ecologically, the West exports pollution to the developing world and then congratulates itself for being green. Politically, they claim to be democratic but operate more like plutocracies or oligarchies, masked by slick PR and the spectacle of elections. Socially, urban life is marked by atomization, an epidemic of loneliness, and dysfunctional dating dynamics. 

Culturally, the West elevates the lowest forms of behavior, as seen with the latest viral sensation, the Hawk Tuah girl. Vulgarity and entertainment are glamorized, while grace and elegance are demonized or dismissed as "prudish." This contradiction is evident in the "passport bros" movement, where men seek traditional women from other countries. 

Health-wise, the majority of the population is medicated just to cope with the soul-crushing reality of this 'development’ - a dysfunctional system they'd like to export to the rest of the world.

Maybe what is deemed "less developed" is just a different way of organising society. Maybe some places and people aren't underdeveloped - they're just differently developed, with priorities aligned to their environment and cultural values.

Bhutan for example has its focus on Gross National Happiness instead of Gross Domestic Product. They've chosen to prioritise well-being, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation over unbridled economic growth. By Western metrics, they might lag behind, but who's to say their approach isn't more "developed" in terms of holistic human flourishing?

Edited July 23 by zazen

[Staples]

1 hour ago, nerdspeak said:

I get what this “development” talk points to but it’s also dangerously close to neo-imperialist ideology.   

I don't think that's quite the vibe here.

Neo-imperialist ideology would say something like "These folks are backwards, we're going to invade, slaughter, exploit, and enslave them while we force them to learn English and worship our God".

And that's not what I see from this thread. Maybe the "these folks are backwards" part, which is a bit harsh. But that doesn't imply an imperialist agenda on its own.

It's valid to say that some lifestyles and levels of development are better than others. I define better here as something that fulfills your basic human needs more efficiently and fully, see Maslow's.

I think it's fair to say that a woke American in California meets their human needs more efficiently and with more consciousness than a tribesman in Africa. This is because they have better accesses to resources, education, industry and global society. They are both products of their environment, and yet I would say the Californian has 'better' development by that definition.

That doesn't mean we should go and force woke Californian culture on African tribesmen, they have a right to their own culture and free will. Californian woke culture would also never fundamentally work in tribal Africa - the environments are just too different. You can't be a vegan when you can't even grow crops because the land is infertile, you got to hunt for meat. If you want to help remote Africans develop, you do generous outreach work like building water wells, provide opportunities for education, and heal the sick. You help them meet their basic human needs. And if you're not wanted - you fuck off when they ask you to.

Is that an imperialist's way of thinking?

Edited July 23 by Staples

[zazen]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You should note that Ukraine was very corrupt and underdeveloped long before any US involvement.

In fact, if you know anything about Russian history, all of Russia was very underdeveloped relative to the rest of Europe. And Russia only had a fighting chance by copying and importing Western European culture. Russian underdevelopment has nothing to do with Western exploitation. In fact, Western influence helped to modernize Russia. Although it was never enough to cure Russia of its backwardness.

The West hasn’t always caused underdevelopment in other regions, as seen in the case of Russia, but historically, it has perpetuated the underdevelopment and exploitation of many countries. Corrupt local elites often collaborate with international financiers, primarily from Western nations, to maintain this status quo. The issue isn’t about who started the development race, but rather who is currently obstructing the progress of other countries to maintain their dominance and superiority.

Just like with your point on Russian underdevelopment relative to Europe, likewise, during the early medieval period Europe was a backwater compared to flourishing civilizations in the East. The Islamic Golden Age saw trailblazers like Al-Khwarizmi, Ibn Sina, and Al-Biruni making strides in science, medicine, mathematics, and philosophy that later lit the way for Europe’s Renaissance. Through the translation movement where Muslim scholars preserved and expanded on Greek and Roman texts, Europe got a sniff of its classical heritage again. Let’s not forget the Crusades - while European knights were off fighting, they also brought back Eastern innovations and knowledge that significantly shaped European development.

Meanwhile, Russia was muddling through its own underdevelopment until Peter the Great came along and started copying Western Europe’s homework. He dragged Russia towards modernity by adopting Western technologies and administrative practices, that were heavily influenced by Eastern cultures - this just highlights how interconnected development in the world is.

What the left lacks is appreciation of Western contribution to development, what the right lack is the appreciation of other cultures contributing to their own cultures formative years of development in order to maintain a feeling of “West is best” superiority. The West’s self congratulatory narrative conveniently glosses over critical chapters in its history or rewrites them.

Edited July 23 by zazen

[nerdspeak]

1 hour ago, Staples said:

I don't think that's quite the vibe here.

Neo-imperialist ideology would say something like "These folks are backwards, we're going to invade, slaughter, exploit, and enslave them while we force them to learn English and worship our God".

And that's not what I see from this thread. Maybe the "these folks are backwards" part, which is a bit harsh. But that doesn't imply an imperialist agenda on its own.

It's valid to say that some lifestyles and levels of development are better than others. I define better here as something that fulfills your basic human needs more efficiently and fully, see Maslow's.

I think it's fair to say that a woke American in California meets their human needs more efficiently and with more consciousness than a tribesman in Africa. This is because they have better accesses to resources, education, industry and global society. They are both products of their environment, and yet I would say the Californian has 'better' development by that definition.

That doesn't mean we should go and force woke Californian culture on African tribesmen, they have a right to their own culture and free will. Californian woke culture would also never fundamentally work in tribal Africa - the environments are just too different. You can't be a vegan when you can't even grow crops because the land is infertile, you got to hunt for meat. If you want to help remote Africans develop, you do generous outreach work like building water wells, provide opportunities for education, and heal the sick. You help them meet their basic human needs. And if you're not wanted - you fuck off when they ask you to.

Is that an imperialist's way of thinking?

Of course neo-imperialist ideology is much more subtle than in early 20th century.

In policy discourse it now takes the form of: Wehave a responsibility to protect civilians from jihadists and oppressive regimes, we have a responsibility to foster economic progress (which often involves preferential access for western firms and “free trade” policies that often crush local firms), etc. 

[Staples]

41 minutes ago, nerdspeak said:

Of course neo-imperialist ideology is much more subtle than in early 20th century.

To be clear what I said was not subtle imperialism. It was by definition anti-imperalist.

I think you're arguing a different point than what I was making. 

The distinction between imperialism and not-imperialism is genuine consent. If aid is accepted whole heartedly and it is designed in good faith and appropriate for the level of conciousness, it is not imperialism. 

Governments and corporations cannot operate in good faith here, and are thus subtle imperialists. A non-profit can.

Edited July 23 by Staples

[nerdspeak]

Yeah, but the non-profits mostly get their funding from governments and multinational corporations. The non-profit industrial complex is a thing.

Many Global South countries made significant strides in the postwar era through the developmentalist state.  This threatened rich countries’ access to cheap natural resources, and also threatened US interests in the Cold War, so we crushed these countries with structural adjustment programs in the 80s.  

Loans — a form of “aid” — were given by IMF and World Bank under the condition of reforming their economies in ways that benefited the richest countries.

it’s gotten more subtle now but conditional aid is still a powerful coercive tool. 
 

When countries refuse this aid, their leaders often get killed.  See Thomas Sankara and many others. 

Edited July 23 by nerdspeak

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 21/07/2024 at 8:40 PM, Leo Gura said:

Dude, the oligarches who rule all these 3rd world countries are not stealing bags of rice to feed their poor kids. They live in palaces with golden toilets and super yatchs. Their spoiled kids drive gold-plated G-Wagons.

These people steal by the billions. Americans can't even fathom that much theft.

Hamas leaders are billionaires.

References???

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 21/07/2024 at 10:57 PM, aurum said:

You perpetually downplay or straight up deny the devilry / corruption of the east. And it's because you are biased towards hating the west.

Clear?

No, his point till now is oposing against the claim that Intervetion by America in other coutries dont play a important role in keeping this places underdeveloped. Is not about Hate, is about letting a place and their people alone to take care of their bussiness, no matter what goes on there. What America Fear is to lose Hegemony, is the fear that if they let other Leaders do whatever they wish, this leaders will grow and attack America, because when you are a Mother Fucker you Fear that others will be evem more Mother Fuckers than you so you will make all possible to not let them become Bigger than you.  

[Rafael Thundercat]

On 22/07/2024 at 3:31 AM, Leo Gura said:

Europeans exploited Native Americans but Native Americans were underdeveloped to begin with. European exploitation did not cause their lack of development.

Depends of what you call Development, if is the sort of Tecnology Settlers had when they arrive to the New World, yes, they had Ships,Guns,and much more. But if Develooment was to live in Union with Nature, the settlers brougth nothing but a very disfunctional way of living. 

I invite you Leo to go have a talk with the Indigenous People of America and hear directly from their Mouths their story. I guess you will not do it since you love to stick to your opinions and not listen to Others. 

 

[Rafael Thundercat]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Does anyone here know what it's like to shit in a hole? If you slip and fall into the hole, you will drown in a pile of liquid shit.

I did, many times, just a sassy would worry about that. 

[Yimpa]

America simply needs more genuine yogis instead of empty promises that float on a magic carpet…

It also goes without saying, but these damn gas prices are too high!

Edited July 23 by Yimpa

[Rafael Thundercat]

10 hours ago, questionreality said:

Do you consider all of your responses to be of "high quality"? When someone actually has a constructive position, and bothers to put in the effort to do research and bring historical examples, you shortly respond with the following:

-You are too brainwashed to understand me

- You are too biased to understand me

-You are too low of consciousness (if it comes to spirituality) to understand me

And at the same time you always act like the smartest person to ever live, all knowing, and you never admit that you are wrong.

 

I feel Leo have difficulties with Criticism. I see in his videos that he pass a lot of the time answering objections, answering sometimes objections he "thinks" people will have against his points. Sometimes the objections were not even in my mind and he was there answering. Another thing that points that Leo have hard time with Critics is that he avoid like hell to have Interviews. Even the people he make critics like Jordan Peterson and Even Tate , this guys have the balls to be interviewed. Tate was even Interviewded by a Therapeut. 

So Leo have a hard time to Listen, to be Face to Face with someone who will ask him direct questions and demand him to answer in the moment and not after thinking like happen in this forum. 

[Yimpa]

3 minutes ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

So Leo have a hard time to Listen, to be Face to Face with someone who will ask him direct questions and demand him to answer in the moment and not after thinking like happen in this forum. 

Precisely why I’m not a politician… staring at humans for more than a few seconds is cringe.

Edited July 23 by Yimpa